USS Fitzgerald

-
zigs said:
Being on a DDG during Viet Nam I'm scratching my head at this. Destroyers are quick for their size , can and will out maneuver any freighter in the ocean been there done that. Radar , Sonar , plot boards , look outs. The plot board alone has all the ships in the area on it and is updated as the ships move. In this case the freighter,. should have had a constant watch on it. There should have been an OOO **** from someone on the bridge.
Click to expand...

What ship?
 
I was Army and did my damnedest to stay away from deep water.
I'm sure that the Navy already has a damn good idea as to what happened but they ain't talking yet.
As for the kid not making rank.
Man I didn't ever think I was going to see E-4! I was an E-3 for two years! But I made E-3 in less than 10 months.
But in all honesty that was my fault. I let myself get caught up in a female and that was 100% my fault. Got rid of her and things started happening. I wasn't E-4 long and made E-5 quick. By the time I made E-6 I was on track with or ahead of my peers.
Keep in mind I was in combat arms (Field Artillery) so getting promoted wasn't tough.
I've heard that compared to the Army, the other branch's promote slower.
I looked into going Air Force between enlistments and the slower promotion rate is what scared me off. Had a guy come from the Navy into the Army because he felt he wouldn't make rank. He was a commo guy and his MOS transferred right over. He was a E-3 when he came over and when I last saw him he was E-6 on the E-7 list.
 
gunbunny said:
I was Army and did my damnedest to stay away from deep water.
I'm sure that the Navy already has a damn good idea as to what happened but they ain't talking yet.
As for the kid not making rank.
Man I didn't ever think I was going to see E-4! I was an E-3 for two years! But I made E-3 in less than 10 months.
But in all honesty that was my fault. I let myself get caught up in a female and that was 100% my fault. Got rid of her and things started happening. I wasn't E-4 long and made E-5 quick. By the time I made E-6 I was on track with or ahead of my peers.
Keep in mind I was in combat arms (Field Artillery) so getting promoted wasn't tough.
I've heard that compared to the Army, the other branch's promote slower.
I looked into going Air Force between enlistments and the slower promotion rate is what scared me off. Had a guy come from the Navy into the Army because he felt he wouldn't make rank. He was a commo guy and his MOS transferred right over. He was a E-3 when he came over and when I last saw him he was E-6 on the E-7 list.
Click to expand...
Yes the Navy is all test. You can make E5 within 4 years. You have to reup to get E6. In some cases during combat they will give you E6 for reinlisting. I know a couple guys that were offered E6 for resigning.
 
1968FormulaS340 said:
He said it's unlikely that he will make rank and won't be allowed to stay in once his time is up. Knowing nothing about the Navy, we were all a little confused by this.
Click to expand...
Unless the Navy has changed in the last 45 years (I hear they don't use sails anymore) this isn't true. They tried like heck to get me to reup and I was an E3 but they may do things different now.
 
The answer is simple. There are too many pussies in the US military in command positions. That container ship should have been blown out of the water.
 
The graphic I saw on the news was the Fitz was running parallel and ahead of the Crystal and then turned starboard, cutting across the Crystals bow and the Crystal turned to port probably to cut in behind her to avoid side swiping it. The Crystals underwater bulbous bow creamed the Fits under the waterline and the bow took out the starboard wing and the Captains quarters. It took 35 minutes for the Crystal to turn around and over 50 minutes to report the collision. Thats some BS right there. Did the Fitz zig instead of zag? I hope the Fitz isnt numbered 109.....
 
Several people have made note of the fact that the Fitzgerald was intentionally not heavily armored to make it able to go fast, and when being hit from the side the damage that happened was to be expected. Others are saying the Fitzgerald may have been used for running drugs, and that Duterte staged the accident to take it out of commission, and send the U.S. a message about interfering in Phillipine politics. But that can't explain how on earth a huge container ship snuck up on it and destroyed it. Something is really wrong with this story. Let's see what happens to the captain, I guess.
 
Who says the Fitz was running drugs? That's as believable as Russia affecting the outcome of our election.....oops, wrong forum.
 
fratzog lover said:
Several people have made note of the fact that the Fitzgerald was intentionally not heavily armored to make it able to go fast, and when being hit from the side the damage that happened was to be expected. Others are saying the Fitzgerald may have been used for running drugs, and that Duterte staged the accident to take it out of commission, and send the U.S. a message about interfering in Phillipine politics. But that can't explain how on earth a huge container ship snuck up on it and destroyed it. Something is really wrong with this story. Let's see what happens to the captain, I guess.
Click to expand...


This means that it would have been intentionally built lite on purpose from its beginnings . That would be highly unlikely. You can go on line and find out its stats and compare them with ships in the same class.
 
pishta said:
Who says the Fitz was running drugs?
Click to expand...
Dont remember where I read it. Someone speculated on it. They are built light for speed, without "unnecessary armor". This time it was necessary. What ever happened, it sure doesnt look like a cut and dry accident, thats for sure.
 
fratzog lover said:
Dont remember where I read it. Someone speculated on it. They are built light for speed, without "unnecessary armor". This time it was necessary. What ever happened, it sure doesnt look like a cut and dry accident, thats for sure.
Click to expand...


Air craft carriers are no lite weights and their speed is classified. I do know they can do 60+. The Enterprise 45 years ago could leave us standing hands down. With today's
Nuke ships there's no need to scale back.
 
The Fitz is a standoff weapon system, it stays far in the safe rear. Steel plate armor was used when ships still lobbed 5-16 inch projectiles at each other from 20+ miles. Todays ships can repel threats at 100+ miles with defensive measures, tactics and aircraft. there is almost no need for armor as nothing is getting close enough. Speed and maneuverability are more important, and it looks like the Fitz didnt use either that night. There is not much you can prepare for a nuke tipped torpedo.
 
[QUOTE="fratzog lover, .com/sdmb/archive/index.php/t-256970.html[/QUOTE]
Destroyers have the same armor as they have always have. Pishta is partially right . The New DDG's have long rang capabilities with surface to air and surface to surface missals but the 5" 54 is for up close and personal but also can be a back up for air targets. Destroyers are still the back bone of the Navy There not called the Gray Hounds of the Pacific For nothing . Its amazing what kind of destruction these things can put down.
Heres some stats from old to new.


USS Henry B Wilson DDG7
Launched 1960
3,277 tons lite
Beam47'
length 437'
draft 15 '
Turbin Powered 2 boiler 70,000 HP
Speed 33knots

USS Fitzgerald DDG62
Launched 1994
6900 tons lite
length 505'
Beam 66'
draft 31'
Turbin powered 100,000 HP
speed30 knots
Then there is the weapons we had everything the fitz did except for the surface to surface and chain guns.
scan0013.jpg
 
pishta said:
How the hell can a Navy destroyer get T-boned by a huge slow container ship? I mean, these ships are fast enough to tow a water skier behind them, have about 10 different radars on them and all kinds of redundant collision detection alarms. WTH? I am glad they found the 7 souls but that boot Commander (1 month!) has ALOT of explaining to do....At 0230, I expect a sleepy non rate seaman at the helm, but there are always fore and aft lookouts posted.
Click to expand...

Gross negligence. Poor training, command climate, laziness, etc.
When it becomes acceptable to neglect your post/watch within the command climate-this happens. The CO is ultimately responsible; he/she/+ has to gauge the capabilities and the attitude of the crew, train them, and uphold many standards. If not, this happens, one way or another.

1968FormulaS340 said:
I guess they don't have radar or global positioning systems on the modern Navy ships.
Click to expand...

THe systems are worthless when not utilized by crew. I bet the facebook updates were current though. From what i have heard after returning from deployment is that the excuses and explanations do not add up. THe systems have logging data-which you cannot lie against.

66fyssh said:
Yeah, absolutely no excuse for this to happen. Who's to say it wasn't deliberate on the part of the cargo ship to ram us...
Click to expand...

No excuse. Deliberate-it would take a Navy report for me to believe that, nothing else.

If you guys want I'll tell you the findings (unclassified parts) when they come out.
 
Why would the Navy say it would take up to a year to close the case? JHC, look a the black box of both ships. Dataloggers, whatever they use to document their movements. Were the course changed done by the bridge or by the GPS autopilot? 0130-0230 in the morning, do destroyers run with running lights? Look at the bridge of the Crystal, how far ahead can they see looking over those containers? Could they possible miss seeing the Fitz if it were running dark?
 
pishta said:
Why would the Navy say it would take up to a year to close the case? JHC, look a the black box of both ships. Dataloggers, whatever they use to document their movements. Were the course changed done by the bridge or by the GPS autopilot? 0130-0230 in the morning, do destroyers run with running lights? Look at the bridge of the Crystal, how far ahead can they see looking over those containers? Could they possible miss seeing the Fitz if it were running dark?
Click to expand...

Why? To get the most complete picture of responsibility and (the ability to avoid this in the future) lessons learned. More than a few people (surface sailors onboard the Fitzgerald) are responsible. There is an entire team onboard the bridge/control, look outs, Officer of the Deck, etc. Shameful.
 
Agree, did 4 years during Nam on 2 different destroyers, fletcher class WWII and I remember once or twice getting thrown out of the rack because somebody on the bridge saw or thought they saw something. If you are able to maneuver that quick you can get out of a cargo ships way. Someone will or should pay big time for this boner.

As for E-3 in 2 years I would say if he fails to get rated he will be lucky to make much of anything else. Best chance of making Petty Officer is to find something he likes doing or wants to learn and find a Chief that likes him and move on from there. Most likely won't make much difference one way or another if he's doing 4 and out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top